SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARINDAM SINHA, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Sahu Anadi Charan - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar and others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.13015 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Dr. K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties:Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, Advocate, Senior Standing Counsel (Revenue)

Reassessment under Income Tax Act requires tangible material to substantiate claims of income escaping assessment, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148-A - Quashment of reassessment notice - Petitioner contested the validity of the order under Section 148-A based on erroneous PAN identity and lack of substantial evidence concerning huge deposits. The impugned order, relied upon information without a corresponding bank account for PAN no. AAGHS2891R. Court emphasized the necessity of tangible material for reassessment proceedings. The absence of such material led the court to conclude that the order lacked basis and warranted quashing. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Tax Procedure - Compliance and Reassessment - Before initiating reassessment, the revenue must follow due process as per amended provisions under Section 148-A, ensuring correct material is available to substantiate claims of income escaping assessment. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Assessing Officer, claiming it was based on incorrect PAN and without any actual evidence of bank deposits. The bank confirmed the absence of an account corresponding to the alleged deposits linked to the incorrect PAN.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order had no basis for reassessment since the revenue lacked tangible material for proceeding with the reassessment. The subsequent notice under Section 148 was also quashed.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the order under Section 148-A based on incorrect PAN and the substantiation of evidence for initiating reassessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for reassessment under the Income Tax Act, there must be tangible material to support claims of income escaping assessment, ensuring due process is complied with prior to proceeding.

Result: Writ petition allowed and impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. basis for impugned order from revenue's information. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues lack of basis for notice. (Para 3)
3. revenue defends order's validity. (Para 4)
4. court's observations on revenue's inquiry. (Para 5 , 6)
5. impugned notice quashed due to lack of basis. (Para 7)
6. writ petition allowed and disposed. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Dr. Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-assessee. He submits, impugned is, inter alia, order dated 28th March, 2023 of the Assessing Officer (AO) made under clause (d) in section 148-A, Income Tax Act, 1961. Purported basis for the order is information had by revenue from inside portal under Risk Management System (RMS) that during financial year 2015-16, relevant to assessment year 2016-17, his client had made huge deposits in his bank account. The amount is alleged to be Rs.1,31,54,000/-.

2. He points out from said impugned order itself that revenue issued letter dated 1st March, 2023 to Punjab National Bank, Jajpur road branch for furnishing statement of bank account in respect of his client. Reply of the bank, extracted in said impugned order, clearly said that there was no such bank account connected to PAN no.AAGHS2891R.

3. He draws attention to the counter filed, paragraph 10. He submits, therein stands mentioned information had with revenue that his client carries on business under PAN no.AGCPS2177E. The show cause notice based on aforesaid PAN no.AAGHS2891R is therefore completely without basis. He seeks interference for quashing impugned order.

4. Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, the impugned order does not warrant interference. Petitioner will have adequate opportunity in the reassessment to ventilate his grievance. So has been said by the Supreme Court in order dated 2nd September, 2022 in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no.14823/2022 ( Anshul Jain v. PCIT ). Text of the order is reproduced below.

“What is challenged before the High Court was the re-opening notice under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices have been issued, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance on merits thereafter, the same has to be agitated before the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings.

Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

No interference of this Court is called for.

The present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

Pending applications stand disposed of.”

5. Before issuing the show cause notice, as appears from impugned order, revenue had enquired of the bank in relation to petitioner’s PAN identity. The bank was clear in confirming there is no account with the branch connected to the PAN identity. Obviously revenue is not on the right track.

6. We are clear in our mind that proceeding for reassessment needs now to be initiated on issuance of show cause, reply thereto, order thereon and thereafter issuance of notice under section 148. The preceding requirements on inserted by amendment section 148-A must be complied with by revenue before launching the reassessment proceeding. Considering that a reassessment can be initiated only on tangible material leading to reason of belief that income has escaped assessment, in the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner has been able to demonstrate that there exists no material, let alone tangible material.

7. Needless to say on quashing of the impugned order made under section 148-A (d) there is no basis for subsequent also impugned notice under section 148, issued to petitioner. Same is also quashed and set aside.

8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top